If we don't have souls...

[FBM]

then what is the ultimate nature of individual identity? Is the self 'just' a temporary arrangement of atoms, molecules and energy? I'm interested in hearing what conclusions some of you guys have arrived at. In a nutshell, who/what is you about the individual with your name, habits, thoughts and history?

[Feck]

I am not sure about ME ,I think I am more of a perception than an objective being .

Have you read...... Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals by john Gray

[FBM]

I am not sure about ME ,I think I am more of a perception than an objective being .

Hope you don't mind if I ask further: whose perception?

Have you read...... Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals by john Gray

No, but thanks for the title. I'll look it up. This is a topic I'm really interested in.

[Animavore]

I am not sure about ME ,I think I am more of a perception than an objective being .

Have you read...... Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals by john Gray

That book was a bit bleak and pessamistic.

That's to say, I enjoyed it.

[ScholasticSpastic]

then what is the ultimate nature of individual identity? Is the self 'just' a temporary arrangement of atoms, molecules and energy? I'm interested in hearing what conclusions some of you guys have arrived at. In a nutshell, who/what is you about the individual with your name, habits, thoughts and history?

I think it's rather silly to expect what's important to us to be important to anything or anyone else, or to feel that things cannot be important to us unless they're also important to someone or something else. Who cares if the universe doesn't? I care regardless. I am myself because I have defined myself to be so. The rest of the universe can fuck off for all I care. I certainly don't require any fairy-stories to feel like my self, as I have defined it, is important.

Is my self real? Probably not. No more than a house is a real entity. There is no real houseness in the world, just a specific arrangement of bricks. Even so, only the most obtuse and solipsistic of philosophy majors go around pronouncing houses to be unreal. It is not necessary for an entity consisting of an arrangement of other parts to be a new entity in order for us to assign it a special identity. Is this logical? Doesn't matter: it's human.

None of our categories exist outside our minds, when you get down to specifics. Why should we be surprised or worried if the same can be said for our selves?

[FBM]

then what is the ultimate nature of individual identity? Is the self 'just' a temporary arrangement of atoms, molecules and energy? I'm interested in hearing what conclusions some of you guys have arrived at. In a nutshell, who/what is you about the individual with your name, habits, thoughts and history?

I think it's rather silly to expect what's important to us to be important to anything or anyone else, or to feel that things cannot be important to us unless they're also important to someone or something else. Who cares if the universe doesn't? I care regardless. I am myself because I have defined myself to be so. The rest of the universe can fuck off for all I care. I certainly don't require any fairy-stories to feel like my self, as I have defined it, is important.

Is my self real? Probably not. No more than a house is a real entity. There is no real houseness in the world, just a specific arrangement of bricks. Even so, only the most obtuse and solipsistic of philosophy majors go around pronouncing houses to be unreal. It is not necessary for an entity consisting of an arrangement of other parts to be a new entity in order for us to assign it a special identity. Is this logical? Doesn't matter: it's human.

None of our categories exist outside our minds, when you get down to specifics. Why should we be surprised or worried if the same can be said for our selves?

Very good. So why do people fight tooth and nail against the notion that we're just temporary arrangements of small, more fundamental things? I'm including many atheists in this. Many deny the existence of any kind of soul, but insist on the reality of the self. Leading to my question, if we don't have souls, then wtf is this 'self' that they insist upon? Just a convenient abstraction, that is to say, a convenient fiction. A place-marker.

Also, this is trivial, but

I am myself because I have defined myself to be so.

...

[charlou]

Leading to my question, if we don't have souls, then wtf is this 'self' that they insist upon?

Self is what makes us unique from each other as individuals, due to the unique combination of genetic material and environmental factors which shape us. As humans, we naturally develop an awareness of our self, but as has been said, we often project that onto others, even into adulthood. I've only become aware of my own tendency for projecting my own experience based thinking onto others in recent years, and have realised how foolish it can be. But I also think projection forms the basis of empathy ...

I'm gradually retraining my thinking, though I do lapse, and sometimes with regret.

[ScholasticSpastic]

Very good. So why do people fight tooth and nail against the notion that we're just temporary arrangements of small, more fundamental things? I'm including many atheists in this. Many deny the existence of any kind of soul, but insist on the reality of the self. Leading to my question, if we don't have souls, then wtf is this 'self' that they insist upon? Just a convenient abstraction, that is to say, a convenient fiction. A place-marker.

We're all told that being an abstract function of our brains isn't enough. If you're told something often enough, it doesn't matter whether it's true, you'll begin to give it credence. There is no logical reason for us to insist that there has to be more to us than a collection of atoms. But when did logic dictate any of our mythos?

Also, this is trivial, but

I am myself because I have defined myself to be so.

...

I think I am, therefor I think I am. It's very sage. Honest. Because things which don't make any sense are wise, don'cha know. It certainly makes more sense than that crap Descartes was spouting.

[FBM]

Leading to my question, if we don't have souls, then wtf is this 'self' that they insist upon?

Self is what makes us unique from each other as individuals, due to the unique combination of genetic material and environmental factors which shape us. As humans, we naturally develop an awareness of our self, but as has been said, we often project that onto others, even into adulthood.

Yes, I couldn't agree more. In this description, whatever we are is contingent and transient. Yet, even if we know this, we must behave as though we're more than the sum of our parts. Not just qualitatively, but existentially or even numerically more.

I've only become aware of my own tendency for projecting my own experience based thinking onto others in recent years, and have realised how foolish it can be. But I also think projection forms the basis of empathy ...

I'm gradually retraining my thinking, though I do lapse, and sometimes with regret.

Same here. Every day I have to toggle between training myself to understand that ultimately 'I' and 'others' are not what is generally taken to be meant by the word 'person', and the conventional understanding that we are, which is a necessary understanding for daily life. It's fun and challenging.

[FBM]

We're all told that being an abstract function of our brains isn't enough. If you're told something often enough, it doesn't matter whether it's true, you'll begin to give it credence. There is no logical reason for us to insist that there has to be more to us than a collection of atoms. But when did logic dictate any of our mythos?

Indeed. As valuable as logic is, it isn't enough to generate happiness, is it?

I think I am, therefor I think I am. It's very sage. Honest. Because things which don't make any sense are wise, don'cha know. It certainly makes more sense than that crap Descartes was spouting.

True that. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. Snickers really satisfies. Kia, the car that cares.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

then what is the ultimate nature of individual identity? Is the self 'just' a temporary arrangement of atoms, molecules and energy? I'm interested in hearing what conclusions some of you guys have arrived at. In a nutshell, who/what is you about the individual with your name, habits, thoughts and history?

My "Self" is a convenient myth to define what I feel I am at this particular moment. It is very closely related to the self that I used for the same purpose a few minutes ago, less related to yesterday's self, a distant cousin of last year's and hasn't even met the self I bought from my parents at age 6.

I have awareness (or at least, I seem to, which is for all practical concerns, the same thing) and I call that of which I have awareness my self. It includes my thoughts, my body, that body's sensations, my memories (what is left of them) and my emotions. It is the package of disparate bits that I call me. But it is not me. It is not really anything but an idea that exists in a lump of meat that currently buzzes with chemical messages but may cease to do so at any time.

There is no self. Not really. But it is a convenient fiction. Especially when it uses its money (another fiction) to by itself beer.

[FBM]

then what is the ultimate nature of individual identity? Is the self 'just' a temporary arrangement of atoms, molecules and energy? I'm interested in hearing what conclusions some of you guys have arrived at. In a nutshell, who/what is you about the individual with your name, habits, thoughts and history?

My "Self" is a convenient myth to define what I feel I am at this particular moment. It is very closely related to the self that I used for the same purpose a few minutes ago, less related to yesterday's self, a distant cousin of last year's and hasn't even met the self I bought from my parents at age 6.

I have awareness (or at least, I seem to, which is for all practical concerns, the same thing) and I call that of which I have awareness my self. It includes my thoughts, my body, that body's sensations, my memories (what is left of them) and my emotions. It is the package of disparate bits that I call me. But it is not me. It is not really anything but an idea that exists in a lump of meat that currently buzzes with chemical messages but may cease to do so at any time.

There is no self. Not really. But it is a convenient fiction. Especially when it uses its money (another fiction) to by itself beer.

Y'know, I think that this is the very 'enlightenment' that Buddha was trying to lead others to. It got mythologized and exaggerated and mystified by the religous-minded, but I really think this is it, i.e, freedom from religious thinking, attachment to being/eternal existence, etc. XC, 'my' friend, 'you' are enlightened, IMO. Same goes for SS and Charlou, AFAICT. This place is crawling with enlightened beings. Is there an exterminating service we could call?

[Trinity]

I think of my "self" as a "witness"; without the ego, without emotions, thought, perception or history. All those other aspects which make up my psyche are just that; aspects and the witness is the part that I think is true and uncorruptable. When I get caught up in my thoughts (or sometimes they are all there seems to be to "me") I stop and ask who is thinking? Who is asking myself who is thinking? I read once that you can imagine your thoughts as a train and your "witness" stands on the platform watching them go by; not feeling, not responding, not involved with them, just observing. That is sometimes the only time I feel real peace.

[Animavore]

Isn't the self just parts of the brain's opinion on its other parts. Y'know like the rational pre-frontal cortex against the amygdala? I'm not sure the self, or at least my self, knows what the fuck its at half the time.

[Beelzebub2]

There is no permanent "self" IMO. It's nothing but a conglomeration of memories, thoughts/feelings, ever in a state of flux, ever changing, never the same water passing through its bed.

The self-image is an artificially made creation, purported by its desire to prolong its existence. Basically "self" is creating the "self" all the time, something along the lines of dog chasing it's own tale, and it's existence is based on time, being memory.